Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Mirage_1 04-09-07, 07:29 AM	These figments separate from you and remain in a cluster, each within 5 feet of at least one other figment or you My question is simple. If the enemy has no clue where you are, and for that matter, when they strike you may actually be there (implying you are in all places at one), from what square do you threaten and be threatened? Do you: a: Threaten all squares near an "image", and are also threatened by all those squares (great for flanking, bad if you want to cast a spell) b: Threaten and be threatened by only from your "real" square Logic says A (a dangerous word in this game), game balance says B. My problem with B, is that this would imply that you really are in that 1 square and the enemies know it. For ths reason I am considering house ruling back to 3.0 (or was it 2.o), where you only occuppied the 5 foot square and not potentially 6 squares thoughts?
Toast_recon 04-09-07, 09:58 AM	I do not think this implies that you are everywhere at once, I think it implies simply what it say: the rest are figments, not you. Figments don't threaten squares really, but the enemy thinks they do. Since you aren't shifting from one square to the next( like pokemon), you are in one square and one square only, at least that is what my logic would say. I think you need to bring your logic back to the store you bought it from. I get mine checked once a year. I am just messing with you, don't take that as an insult, please!:gah: :hides: I get sidetracked a lot. I would say no, They don't threaten other squares. EDIT: I would say, now that I reread it, yes for flanking,no for attacks of oppurtunity. They can do things that don't require phisical contact, such as attcking or being attaced, but they can distract, and probably even feint.
mvincent 04-09-07, 01:40 PM	from what square do you threaten and be threatened?From your 'actual' square. I am considering house ruling back to 3.0 (or was it 2.o), where you only occuppied the 5 foot square and not potentially 6 squaresFrom the 3.5 FAQ: "Is there a way to decide which squares the figments from a mirror image spell occupy? Or do the images distribute themselves randomly? If it’s the latter, how does the DM decide where they go? Although the spell description says the images from a mirror image spell always stay within 5 feet of either the user or another image, it’s easiest to assume that all the images occupy the same space the spell user occupies. Any attack that can reach the user’s space can affect an image."
Marcus Majarra 04-09-07, 01:42 PM	Figments will neither threaten nor help an ally flank. As with most of the illusion school, playing this spell tactically is mostly a matter of psyching your opponent into acting how you want him to act.
Mirage_1 04-09-07, 01:59 PM	I suppose what gets me is: Enemies attempting to attack you or cast spells at you must select from among indistinguishable targets. Generally, roll randomly to see whether the selected target is real or a figment. therefore....although you have an "acual" square, they hit another square and there is a chance it is real? Sorta implies you are also sorta there for it to have a chance of really hitting you. Also, if you are real enough to fool, why would it not help in flanking as the premise is based not on actually attacking, but rather the opponent thinking you can? I think a big mistake was made in moving to the multiple square mirror image. If you are real enough to be hit in any of the squares, real enough to foil them into attacking at any of the squares, then logically you are real enough to be attacked when casting a spell, real enough to count for flanking, etc (ie - both the good and the bad of being in all squares)
Marcus Majarra 04-09-07, 02:01 PM	What the text implies is that opponents must decide which square to target randomly, not that you occupy a random square.
Mirage_1 04-09-07, 02:02 PM	From your 'actual' square. From the 3.5 FAQ: "Is there a way to decide which squares the figments from a mirror image spell occupy? Or do the images distribute themselves randomly? If it’s the latter, how does the DM decide where they go? Although the spell description says the images from a mirror image spell always stay within 5 feet of either the user or another image, it’s easiest to assume that all the images occupy the same space the spell user occupies. Any attack that can reach the user’s space can affect an image." Sounds like the makers of the faq agree with me, now if only it was erratta instead of FAQ {insert wistful expression here} Sounds like a hourse rule to simply say all images occupy the same square as per FAQ
Toast_recon 04-09-07, 02:09 PM	RAW and the FAQ seem to contradict...... I agree with the majority that you have an "actual" square, but with mirage that it will help you flank. Because, essentially, flanking is distracting the target(waving, jumping, putting hands in front of eyes) all acomplishable by illusions. "you can move into and through a mirror image.....The figments may also move through eachother. Why would they say that if they were all "you", as in they were all randomly you or not you. How would you choose which to move?
Morwen 04-09-07, 02:26 PM	The newer spell Greater Mirror Image says, like the FAQ for Mirror Image, that all the figments are in the same space that you yourself are. It's probably safe to say that they're meant to behave the same way, even if it isn't in an errata.
Toast_recon 04-09-07, 02:45 PM	wait, an adjacent square is within five feet, so couldn't they be in a long line instead?
mvincent 04-09-07, 03:29 PM	wait, an adjacent square is within five feet, so couldn't they be in a long line instead?Yup. It's just tends to be a painful way to handle it (that most players have moved away from, using the FAQ and Greater mirror image definition instead).
olshanski_home 04-09-07, 03:44 PM	The FAQ in this case are cleaner and easier to adjudicate than the RAW, and therefore for purposes of Mirror Image I use the FAQ rather than the RAW.
Toast_recon 04-09-07, 04:00 PM	yes but I have never been one to take the easy way out...... The not easy way is easier for me.....that makes it the easy way....which means I shouldn't take it....:doh:
Man in the Funny Hat 04-11-07, 01:25 PM	My question is simple. If the enemy has no clue where you are, and for that matter, when they strike you may actually be there (implying you are in all places at one), from what square do you threaten and be threatened? Do you: a: Threaten all squares near an "image", and are also threatened by all those squares (great for flanking, bad if you want to cast a spell) b: Threaten and be threatened by only from your "real" squarePersonally, I think Mirror Image, for such a low-level, simple spell is just CRAWLING with problems for the very reasons you indicate. As others have stated the FAQ suggests handling it in a much simpler fashion than the RAW states that it ACTUALLY works. To run it closer to the RAW then yes, all squares near an image are... technically threatened by you. In reality they are NOT, but the enemy cannot know that until the images are dispelled or proven to BE mere images. The enemy will then start to find out that they are NOT threatened when they do things that SHOULD have gotten them an AoO, etc., but didn't. Your ACTUAL location on the other hand, is not threatened by things that threaten your mirror images - only by those that threaten your ACTUAL location. But again, the enemy cannot know that until they dispell all the images that LOOK like you but really aren't you. So, if you start casting a spell while one of your images stands next to an enemy (but nowhere near YOU) then the image will draw an AoO for it, could be hit and dispelled, but you will be unaffected and your spell will complete normally. In theory, by the RAW for the spell, you could have your images moving around all over the place, every round, subject only to your own movement limits (an image exceeding your movement would be a clue that an image is actually an image, not real) and the need to be remain either 5' from you or another image. You could spread the images out in a line, form a tight block, or sprinkle them randomly, and change from one to the other every round. Obviously, this could be rather tedious, confusing, and problematic, but it CAN be done. Now you might think that by moving images from one square to another would draw AoO you only have to remember that by the spell description nobody can tell what's goin on when you move THROUGH your own image and when images move from place to place. Somewhere through it all is the real you, but they CANNOT tell where the real you actually IS. Without actually saying it outright, what this means is that the spell grants the caster the ability to IGNORE AoO for moving through threatened areas. If they CANNOT tell when you move through an image right into and out of their threatened spaces then all the images are immune to AoO for moving/changing positions through threatened spaces as well. So, you can run it closer to the RAW than the FAQ suggests (and actually shame on WotC for essentialy saying, "Don't run it the way it's written - but there's nothing actually WRONG about how it's written"), but it can be dodgy at times just PRECISELY how it should work/not work.
Kuronue 04-13-07, 08:39 AM	The % chance to hit or not seems to me to be an abstraction of the character selecting a random spot to hit- if I were to use this spell to create an interesting BBEG battle, I'd pull out a grid and plot on it where each image is, and have them select a target to hit and tell them if they hit him or an image, rather than abstracting it as such. But, if one of the players just used it randomly and didn't feel like doing the work, assuming they're all in the same square (can you imagine how weird that would look? At least have them directly to each side or something) seems like a valid abstraction
primemover003 04-15-07, 01:46 PM	Even if you do have images in multiple squares they do exactly the same thing you do... meaning they can't be used to move to the other side of an enemy to flank because they'd be facing the opposite way. Sure there's no facing in the rules but for all intents and purposes an image on the opposite side of an enemy will have it's back to the enemy because that's how you are oriented. <--I E--> <-- C Image, Enemy, Caster facing. So KISS and use the FAQ method.
Mirage_1 04-15-07, 02:21 PM	Even if you do have images in multiple squares they do exactly the same thing you do... meaning they can't be used to move to the other side of an enemy to flank because they'd be facing the opposite way. Sure there's no facing in the rules but for all intents and purposes an image on the opposite side of an enemy will have it's back to the enemy because that's how you are oriented. <--I E--> <-- C Image, Enemy, Caster facing. So KISS and use the FAQ method. I think I'll be using FAQ, so we agree there :-) However, your above example is a bit flawed. At least in my thought, if such was the case it would be easy to tell which is which
MakArios 04-15-07, 04:49 PM	I don`t see a flaw in primemover`s logic. If it were different, then if you would move 5' back what will you're image do? It can`t move in the opposite direction, because it does exactly the same thing as you do. You would have to use objective directions like north, east etc., but that way when you`re moving back, you're image is moving forth - and that`s against the spell description, so it cannot be done. This makes the spell somewhat... unexplainable? ;) Anyway, the FAQ`s definition is what my group is using and we`ve never had any problem with it. Cheers :).
tos_shai_hulud 04-15-07, 05:00 PM	I don't know. I have always thought of the spell creating duplicates that could surround an enemy. He doesn't know which way to turn. Yes, they all perform the same mechanical motions as the caster, but their facing could be any orientation.
lears_fool 04-15-07, 07:05 PM	See, I always saw Mirror Image as really simple, with the only bit I had to ask questions about being the impact of blur/displacement and such (which is in the FAQ). 1) x images are created. 2) an opponent striking at you ends up striking either you or an image randomly 3) If an opponent hits an image, they 'pop', you don't 'pop' so he can continue to attack you 4) at the beginning of your turn you can 'blend' with your images freely, so they have to find you again 5) the images are 'a ways' apart, so ray and touch attacks also have the same chance of hitting an image. And that's really it. If an effect's targeted (including a swallow attempt from the earlier thread, since it's presume something's actually aiming even if it does have a huge mouth) it's subject to the same restrictions. An area of effect spell is not but doesn't pop the images.
Mirage_1 04-16-07, 03:04 AM	See, I always saw Mirror Image as really simple, with the only bit I had to ask questions about being the impact of blur/displacement and such (which is in the FAQ). 1) x images are created. 2) an opponent striking at you ends up striking either you or an image randomly 3) If an opponent hits an image, they 'pop', you don't 'pop' so he can continue to attack you 4) at the beginning of your turn you can 'blend' with your images freely, so they have to find you again 5) the images are 'a ways' apart, so ray and touch attacks also have the same chance of hitting an image. And that's really it. If an effect's targeted (including a swallow attempt from the earlier thread, since it's presume something's actually aiming even if it does have a huge mouth) it's subject to the same restrictions. An area of effect spell is not but doesn't pop the images. and yet, your "this is how i do it" ignores all the issues stated above, hence why the FAQ version is much better than the RAW version. If the images take up multiple squares, and if hitting one of those images can result in it really being you and you taking damage, then those images should be considered for flanking, and threatening, as their is no discernable difference
lears_fool 04-16-07, 11:32 AM	and yet, your "this is how i do it" ignores all the issues stated above, hence why the FAQ version is much better than the RAW version. If the images take up multiple squares, and if hitting one of those images can result in it really being you and you taking damage, then those images should be considered for flanking, and threatening, as their is no discernable difference I try NOT to over analyze the already unrealistic. People don't REALLY move in 5' squares and take turns before acting, that's a combat mechanic. Presumably, flanking doesn't just happen 'because you're there', it happens because someone has to worry about you, which given how amazingly long rounds are in real time (a lot can happen in six seconds) could easily incorporate some give-and-take (i.e. you move, I react threateningly and move a bit more into your space and take a quick swipe, which you dodge easily but is enough to cause you to worry about my 'space'. The images don't threaten either because they're not close enough to you to do so or they move out of/through the area before it matters. Additionally, if you have 9 guys in a 15' by 15' square, there are lots of ways to situate them in the 'real world' other than perfectly evenly spread. Though I fail to see how you'd get 9 guys in a 5' square without it being terribly awkward. Bringing that over to game mechanics. . The square you are in threatens because you are able to engage in effective give-and take while the other squares that images may or may not be in do not. The images are pretty busy and move around a lot with you making it difficult to target you or figure out which of you is which in all the confusion. You keep in mind that it's hard to tell precisely WHERE the caster is but don't get overly worked up about it. And you don't grant abilities (flanking) or take abilities away (saying 'you're all in a 5' square' instead of 'you're TREATED for simplicity's sake like you're in a 5' square') and you play it like the original+FAQ
Toast_recon 04-22-07, 05:23 PM	I think most of you are just overcomplicating things. YOu put some images in a couple of squares of your choice, the enemy thinks they are you. Any thing that doesn't involve phisical contact procedes normally. Why do you have to overcomplicate it? Edit: within the range, of course.
Mirage_1 04-22-07, 09:57 PM	I think most of you are just overcomplicating things. YOu put some images in a couple of squares of your choice, the enemy thinks they are you. Any thing that doesn't involve phisical contact procedes normally. Why do you have to overcomplicate it? Edit: within the range, of course. Again. If an enemy truly thinks it is you, then it should count for purposes of flanking opponents, as they think someone is actually there
tos_shai_hulud 04-22-07, 10:07 PM	Again. If an enemy truly thinks it is you, then it should count for purposes of flanking opponents, as they think someone is actually there Lol, flanking rules are just a game mechanic. Do you really think that if a half-orc barbarian and a gnomish wizard were flanking a great wyrm red dragon, the dragon would pay ANY attention to the gnome waving a dagger around? The rules say what the rules say. In the end, if you think that the rules should imply something else, that becomes a house rule.
Mirage_1 04-22-07, 10:50 PM	Lol, flanking rules are just a game mechanic. Do you really think that if a half-orc barbarian and a gnomish wizard were flanking a great wyrm red dragon, the dragon would pay ANY attention to the gnome waving a dagger around? The rules say what the rules say. In the end, if you think that the rules should imply something else, that becomes a house rule. hmm, rules to hit, cast spells, and everything else in the game are just game mechanics. If I corner a half-orc rage mage down an alley and all of a sudden I am surrounded by half-orcs on all sides, why should I not be confused as to what is real and be flanked? X = wall M = mirror Image H - half-orc rage mage C - cutpurse XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XMMM XHCM XMMM XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX I would argue that the cutpurse has no clue which is real and is therefore flanked as he is totally surrounded by enemies or...option 2 (and what I will be using) XXXXXXXXXXXXXX X XHC X XXXXXXXXXXX H = half orc with swirling and entertwining images, but not taking up more than his square C = cutpurse No longer flanked, much easier on the rules and not needing to ignore basic logic
tos_shai_hulud 04-23-07, 01:48 AM	When two people fight with weapons, not every attack will hit. Most attacks will be parried or dodged. Parrying might be required to constitute flanking. It may be possible for the images to aid another (if they were capable of such a thing, which they are not), but they don't actually threaten the square. If the creature surrounded by images attempted to parry the attack of the illusion, he would quickly discover that he was not truly surrounded. This has the potential to negate the flanking. Or, you could say that you want flanking. Or your could go with option 2. As mentioned in my last post, the rules indicate that flanking does not occur. Come up with a reason or don't go by the rules. No matter how you justify it, if you go with option 1 and allow flanking, it will be house rules.
Toast_recon 04-23-07, 03:55 PM	Again. If an enemy truly thinks it is you, then it should count for purposes of flanking opponents, as they think someone is actually there Exactly, couldn't have put it better. Now, could you make an intimidate check from afar?:thinks: and I think that flanking involves no phisical contact, merely him worrying,is this guy gonna attack me? and keeping an eye on him. It divides his concentration.
Mirage_1 04-23-07, 05:47 PM	Exactly, couldn't have put it better. Now, could you make an intimidate check from afar?:thinks: and I think that flanking involves no phisical contact, merely him worrying,is this guy gonna attack me? and keeping an eye on him. It divides his concentration. Considering that the flanking rules don't even require you to be atatacking him, just the possibility that you might attack, it is hard to argue otherwise
tos_shai_hulud 04-23-07, 06:03 PM	Considering that the flanking rules don't even require you to be atatacking him, just the possibility that you might attack, it is hard to argue otherwise So now you are trying to justify that you are right with the rules? Ok, here we go: Mirror Image Illusion (Figment) Figment A figment spell creates a false sensation. Those who perceive the figment perceive the same thing, not their own slightly different versions of the figment. (It is not a personalized mental impression.) Figments cannot make something seem to be something else. A figment that includes audible effects cannot duplicate intelligible speech unless the spell description specifically says it can. If intelligible speech is possible, it must be in a language you can speak. If you try to duplicate a language you cannot speak, the image produces gibberish. Likewise, you cannot make a visual copy of something unless you know what it looks like. Because figments and glamers (see below) are unreal, they cannot produce real effects the way that other types of illusions can. They cannot cause damage to objects or creatures, support weight, provide nutrition, or provide protection from the elements. Consequently, these spells are useful for confounding or delaying foes, but useless for attacking them directly. You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you’re unarmed, you don’t normally threaten any squares and thus can’t make attacks of opportunity. When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by a character or creature friendly to you on the opponent’s opposite border or opposite corner. Combine all of this, and you will find that Figments can distract (so if they somehow gain the ability to make actions, they could Aid Another in combat, granting similar bonuses to flanking). Figments cannot directly attack. Flanking only occurs when a target is threatened on both sides. You must be able to make a melee attack into a square to be considered threatening it. So, surrounded by images, the target in the center is not threatened by the images. He is therefore not flanked. Now, as stated, if you disagree with this, you are free to house rule it, but the RAW is pretty clear on this matter.
Zankue 04-23-07, 06:13 PM	A flaw with your idea that they do everything exactly the same as is including where they face, is movement. You and an image can blur into each other and step out now they don't know who you are. WAIT! how'd I do that if they make the exact same movements as me when I walk five feet toward them, they walk five feet away. There for these are images that you control in movement and direction, but not in hand gestures.
Mirage_1 04-23-07, 06:17 PM	Now, as stated, if you disagree with this, you are free to house rule it, but the RAW is pretty clear on this matter. The RAW was in no way clear, perhaps you should read again. As I read above, the opponent needs to feel threatened which the image should do so. If the image is so fake as to not fool the foe as to thinking the person is actually there, then it is not sufficienty real to confuse the person as to strike the wrong one thinking it is there. Now, to confuse matters more, take the below: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XMMM XHCM XMMM XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX If the cutpurse (C) attacks the mirror image directly to his right, he actually has a chance of actually hitting the half-orc mage (H). In order to do that, the Half orc is possibly in that location. Heck, by the horribleness of this spell, he has a 1/8th chance of being in each locations. And if he has a chance of being in any location, why should he not be real enough threaten in addition to just mearly counting for flanking Therefore, the only reasonable way of doing this spell whithout making it more poerful than it should be is is to treat it as per 3.0, FAQ, and the new Greater Mirror Image, in which you dont fill any ther squares XXXXXXXXXXXXXX X XHC X XXXXXXXXXXX
tos_shai_hulud 04-23-07, 06:28 PM	Perhaps you should read it again. It does not say the opponent needs to feel threatened. It says the opponent needs to BE threatened. I provided you with the rules from the SRD of what constitutes a threatened square. The image would need to be capable of making a melee attack into the enemy's square. Read the rules for Figment. Figments cannot attack. If the figment cannot attack, the figment cannot threaten. If the figment cannot threaten, the figment cannot flank. The rules are clear. Your argument is based on your desire for your view to be right. It is not RAW. It makes for fine house rules, but it is not RAW. Additionally, no where in the spell Mirror image does it give any indication that you control the location of the images. It says that they move around. In an enclosed space like that, one would hope they did not move through a wall, because that would give away pretty rapidly which one is not you. They also stay in a cluster, based around you. They are also, in general, moving, with the exception of casting a spell. The spell description seems to indicate that they move in random directions (sometimes through each other). This means that some will move with different velocities. The only thing that is similar is their actions. If they are walking around, they are doing the same thing with their hands as the caster.
Mirage_1 04-23-07, 06:31 PM	Hmmm...taking into account that a foe does not need to actually attack you for you to be flanked, just to think you can attack him, Logic holds to my side. I agree insofar that the rules are contradictory. Especially since you could argue you do threten from that square as you have a 20% chance of actually being there (higher percentage with less imagesof course) Simple Not real enough to flank, definitely not real enought to fool me that it is real. Choice is simple
tos_shai_hulud 04-23-07, 06:50 PM	Actually, according to the Mirror Image spell, you would not be able to control the images to go to flanking positions. If the images wound up there, they would no longer be in a cluster (as the spell describes). Since they are in a cluster (with no image being more than five feet from another image), they would not surround a target, since that is not a cluster formation. This means that there is not a 20% chance of you actually being in another square. It gives you a 100% chance of being in your square with images moving about in a cluster around you. Attacking the center of the cluster makes sense, and there is a chance that what is attacked is not you.
Mirage_1 04-23-07, 08:07 PM	Actually, according to the Mirror Image spell, you would not be able to control the images to go to flanking positions. If the images wound up there, they would no longer be in a cluster (as the spell describes). Since they are in a cluster (with no image being more than five feet from another image), they would not surround a target, since that is not a cluster formation. This means that there is not a 20% chance of you actually being in another square. It gives you a 100% chance of being in your square with images moving about in a cluster around you. Attacking the center of the cluster makes sense, and there is a chance that what is attacked is not you. hmmm...I even gave you a diagram showing how the scenario could happen....I shall give it again X = wall M = mirror Image H - half-orc rage mage C - cutpurse XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XMMM XHCM XMMM XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX now in my case, I had the fun of it happening in my game...let me see if I can reproduce...below is what convinced me that the spell was messed up S = Were-rate sorcerer M = mirror images W = were-rats rogues P = Pit C = PC's X = wall D = door XCWPPMWX XCMWMWWX XSCMMWWX XXXXXXXXX So this gives me a bunch of images far away from the sorcerer, and yet, if hit, had a 1/6th chance of actually hurting the sorcerer
tos_shai_hulud 04-23-07, 08:12 PM	All of your scenarios do NOT fit in with the description of the spell. All images form into a CLUSTER with no image being more than 5' from another. It would look more like this: X = wall H = Half-orc Rage Mage C = Cutpurse M = Images O = overlap of images and the wall (figments have no reason to be stopped by walls, as they are not real or material in any way) XXXXXXXXXXX OMM OHC OMM XXXXXXXXXXX Here is a better description of what it is saying. The images form a cluster. The images are constantly moving (not attacking the cutpurse). Note how the images in this example are in a cluster, and not surrounding the cutpurse as in your example. Your example had no cluster, it had a formation. This has a cluster, no formation. By the description of the spell, the images form a cluster around the caster. Your scenario is impossible.
Mirage_1 04-23-07, 08:26 PM	All of your scenarios do NOT fit in with the description of the spell. All images form into a CLUSTER with no image being more than 5' from another. It would look more like this: X = wall H = Half-orc Rage Mage C = Cutpurse M = Images O = overlap of images and the wall (figments have no reason to be stopped by walls, as they are not real or material in any way) XXXXXXXXXXX OMM OHC OMM XXXXXXXXXXX Here is a better description of what it is saying. The images form a cluster. The images are constantly moving (not attacking the cutpurse). Note how the images in this example are in a cluster, and not surrounding the cutpurse as in your example. Your example had no cluster, it had a formation. This has a cluster, no formation. By the description of the spell, the images form a cluster around the caster. Your scenario is impossible. umm...no, reread the spell, the only hard requirement is that each image must be within 5 feet of another image OR the caster Also, this is downright illogical, or it is painfully obvious which are real and fake and the spell as absolutely no effect
tos_shai_hulud 04-23-07, 08:30 PM	True enough, but the other requirement is that it must be a cluster. The scenarios you have depicted have not been clusters. If the images do not have room to spread out, perhaps they don't spread out. They might overlap others. Nothing prevents them from being in the cutpurses square. Nothing in the spell description would cause the images to surround an opponent. Ever. Based on the fact that the images are constantly moving, it does seem to indicate that the images tend to move in and out of your square rather frequently. This makes it clear which square you are in, but not which image is you.
Mirage_1 04-23-07, 09:03 PM	True enough, but the other requirement is that it must be a cluster. The scenarios you have depicted have not been clusters. If the images do not have room to spread out, perhaps they don't spread out. They might overlap others. Nothing prevents them from being in the cutpurses square. Nothing in the spell description would cause the images to surround an opponent. Ever. Based on the fact that the images are constantly moving, it does seem to indicate that the images tend to move in and out of your square rather frequently. This makes it clear which square you are in, but not which image is you. lets try this again If it was a requirement that they cluster, then the rules would say that all images must be within 5 feet of the caster, not that they be within 5 feet of the caster OR another image. The only reasonable explaination of the reading is that when given a chance they will be as close to the caster as possible, not that they all have to be within 5 feet of the caster.
tos_shai_hulud 04-24-07, 02:06 AM	Lets try this again. They are constantly moving into and out of the caster's square, indicating that no matter how far away they are, they are not staying there long enough to flank anything. There is one square through which they all pass, regardless of how far away they get. That square is able to be targeted by attacks. This is the only explanation that makes sense. The enemy knows the square of the caster, but not which image is the caster. As the images keep shifting through the caster's square, they are constantly confused as to which is the caster and which is the image. That is the description given for the spell. So, we should conclude that you cannot put the images wherever you feel like. Since you don't control the positions of the images, they do not attack, they do not flank.
Mirage_1 04-24-07, 06:49 AM	Lets try this again. They are constantly moving into and out of the caster's square, indicating that no matter how far away they are, they are not staying there long enough to flank anything. There is one square through which they all pass, regardless of how far away they get. That square is able to be targeted by attacks. This is the only explanation that makes sense. The enemy knows the square of the caster, but not which image is the caster. As the images keep shifting through the caster's square, they are constantly confused as to which is the caster and which is the image. That is the description given for the spell. So, we should conclude that you cannot put the images wherever you feel like. Since you don't control the positions of the images, they do not attack, they do not flank. or to try yet again, there is no explaination that makes sense as the spell is messed up and going to the all in 1 square is the only logical choice, and apparently WOTC agrees with me, as the FAQ pushes in that direction and the greater mirror image uses that same stye
tos_shai_hulud 04-24-07, 07:42 AM	I will not try again. Believe what you want. The SRD is clear about figments not being capable of flanking. If you decide that you like figments that can flank, you go ahead and do that. It will still be house rules, as I have been saying for a long time. I am not just talking about mirror image. I am talking about figments in general.
Mirage_1 04-24-07, 07:52 AM	I will not try again. Believe what you want. The SRD is clear about figments not being capable of flanking. If you decide that you like figments that can flank, you go ahead and do that. It will still be house rules, as I have been saying for a long time. I am not just talking about mirror image. I am talking about figments in general. WOW, you are really not reading what I type are you? I am not letting mine flank, as I will use the same version as the FAQ and the greater mirror image - ie - the caster and images take up only 1 square. I am simply saying that the RAW for mirror image is badly worded, open to disagreement as to how it should be run and totally illogical
tos_shai_hulud 04-24-07, 07:54 AM	Let's pretend that the spell was worded like this: Surrounding Image Illusion (Figment) This creates several images of the caster surrounding a target, pretending to attack. This still would not grant flanking. Figments, by the SRD, cannot flank.
Mirage_1 04-24-07, 07:57 AM	Let's pretend that the spell was worded like this: Surrounding Image Illusion (Figment) This creates several images of the caster surrounding a target, pretending to attack. This still would not grant flanking. Figments, by the SRD, cannot flank. if the wording also says "these are totally indistinguishable from a real foe", then the better count for flanking, or you are granting the individual effectively the ability to know that they are not real
Mirage_1 04-24-07, 08:00 AM	now in saying that, I would also rgue it shouldnt be counted as a figment and the spell is badly done as the effect doesnt match the type
Mirage_1 04-24-07, 08:04 AM	or to put another way If it real enough for me to thin it is a real, it is real enough to flank, cannot get any more simple than that or yet another way If those figment surrounding the foe are so indistinguishable from the real thing that the poor guy thinks that they are real, then darn right he is flanked
lears_fool 04-24-07, 08:06 AM	Hmmm...taking into account that a foe does not need to actually attack you for you to be flanked, just to think you can attack him, Logic holds to my side. I agree insofar that the rules are contradictory. Especially since you could argue you do threten from that square as you have a 20% chance of actually being there (higher percentage with less imagesof course) Simple Not real enough to flank, definitely not real enought to fool me that it is real. Choice is simple You're overanalyzing a mechanic that does not have a perfect connection to reality. If you REALLY want to make it work with some sort of logic, then try this. . . Six seconds is a long time, and a 5' square is quite large. Flanking requires a bit of give-and-take during the six seconds (at the least some reasonable feint (human version, not D&D version)). It's perfectly reasonable to assume that the mirror images in question do not grant flanking because they do not position themselves close enough (one can be 8' away and still in a 5' square) or don't remain in the square in question for the entire six seconds (again, real world. . people don't take turns). If that's too much to grasp, then you can simply go by the rules, which at no point grant a flanking bonus to your mirror images. If you choose to grant flanking as a house rule, then I'd advise you ramp up the level of the mirror image spell (and the improved one) to balance it accordingly, as it would be a notable advantage.
Mirage_1 04-24-07, 08:07 AM	or to put it a third way those figments can threaten, true, their attacks are worthless, and have no chance of actual doing anything, but if a real person would threaten, then the figment of that person would also threaten, just its attacks would do no damage
Mirage_1 04-24-07, 08:11 AM	You're overanalyzing a mechanic that does not have a perfect connection to reality. If you REALLY want to make it work with some sort of logic, then try this. . . Six seconds is a long time, and a 5' square is quite large. Flanking requires a bit of give-and-take during the six seconds (at the least some reasonable feint (human version, not D&D version)). It's perfectly reasonable to assume that the mirror images in question do not grant flanking because they do not position themselves close enough (one can be 8' away and still in a 5' square) or don't remain in the square in question for the entire six seconds (again, real world. . people don't take turns). If that's too much to grasp, then you can simply go by the rules, which at no point grant a flanking bonus to your mirror images. If you choose to grant flanking as a house rule, then I'd advise you ramp up the level of the mirror image spell (and the improved one) to balance it accordingly, as it would be a notable advantage. I am not giving flanking to my mirror images as I am not giving them multiple squares I am saying that if you use the RAW, and not the FAQ or mirror the greater mirror image spell, and that the images do take up multiple space and they are indistinguishable from a real foe, then they SHOULD ould for flanking. As that is obviously too powerful for the spell level, then obviously that should not be done. IE - use the FAQ/Greater mirror image version and have it only take up 1 space.
tos_shai_hulud 04-24-07, 08:21 AM	or to put it a third way those figments can threaten, true, their attacks are worthless, and have no chance of actual doing anything, but if a real person would threaten, then the figment of that person would also threaten, just its attacks would do no damage Or, if a real person attempts to threaten an enemy, he may very well be letting the enemy know specifically where he is. Since the images cannot threaten, the spell may very well be broken by attempting to flank with one of your images, as it would give away your position definitively. Not only would you not gain the flank, but you would lose the benefit of your spell.
Mirage_1 04-24-07, 08:57 AM	Or, if a real person attempts to threaten an enemy, he may very well be letting the enemy know specifically where he is. Since the images cannot threaten, the spell may very well be broken by attempting to flank with one of your images, as it would give away your position definitively. Not only would you not gain the flank, but you would lose the benefit of your spell. Hmm Flanking rules do not require you to actual attack the enemy, just being there is enough. Therefore, if the opponent thinks you are there, then that is enough for flanking
lears_fool 04-24-07, 10:26 AM	I am not giving flanking to my mirror images as I am not giving them multiple squares I am saying that if you use the RAW, and not the FAQ or mirror the greater mirror image spell, and that the images do take up multiple space and they are indistinguishable from a real foe, then they SHOULD ould for flanking. As that is obviously too powerful for the spell level, then obviously that should not be done. IE - use the FAQ/Greater mirror image version and have it only take up 1 space. Only one caveat there, the Mirror Image spell DOES make it impossible to determine a caster's square, which will factor in on occasion (lightning bolts, that sort of thing). The FAQ states that you can generally treat the caster as if they're in one square, because most of the time it doesn't matter, and it'd be a huge pain to track a bunch of images. However, it's pretty easy to handle the exceptions intelligently, if situationally, especially if you're not stuck on the '5' square' and not moving until the next turn' mentality. It's not RAW (which does have multiple squares), but it's fast and I've yet to get a complaint
Murrdox 04-24-07, 11:39 AM	Mirror Image only occupies the square that the caster is in. Nothing else. You should not be placing mirror images on the battlefield in different squares at all. This is not a mechanic that is built into the spell. The spell states that the images remain close to you, never more than 5' from the caster or other images. HOWEVER Do not take that wording to mean that you are allowed to "position" your images on the battlefield however you choose. That mechanic is not in the rules. Thus, you cannot use it. That description from the spell is not a rule mechanic, it is a flavor mechanic. It is meant to illustrate that you cannot project mirror images in a circle around a foe, or on the opposite side of the room, etc. It explains how the images work. It does NOT say you get to place them. It does not state that each image occupies its own square. Both of those lines would need to be in the spell description to interpret the spell as you are doing. Illusions cannot have "real" effects on combat. Thus, you cannot use an illusion to flank an opponent. You cannot summon a swarm of illusions for one of your allies to kill and take advantage of Great Cleave against a foe (summon a bag of rats next to a fighter for example). You cannot use an illusion to make something appear bigger or smaller than it is, and actually increase or decrease its armor class in the process. Even if you cast a spell which made a Giant appear like a diminutive creature, the Giant would retain its own AC. (Actually shrinking it with a "Reduce" spell is fine, since you are actually altering the physical size of the creature.) There are a lot of uses for illusions in combat. You can conjure false foes for your opponents to attack. You can conjure barriers or hazards that your opponents think they need to avoid. You can conjure imaginary cover to hide behind. However, illusions (Including the Mirror Image spell) don't have an effect on combat. That includes giving other characters flanking bonuses.
crowclub 04-24-07, 11:56 AM	We use the "all images are actually in the same square as you" rules because it make more sense to us. It also make the OP's question easy to answer.
lears_fool 04-24-07, 12:11 PM	Mirror Image only occupies the square that the caster is in. Nothing else. While I generally agreed with your post, and also follow the 'treat the images as if you're all in the same square unless there's a good reason not to' rule. . I do have to point out that, according to the spell text, the images can and very likely DO actually occupy different squares if you're going pure RAW. Even in the FAQ they state Is there a way to decide which squares the figments from a mirror image spell occupy? Or do the images distribute themselves randomly? If it’s the latter, how does the DM decide where they go? Although the spell description says the images from a mirror image spell always stay within 5 feet of either the user or another image, it’s easiest to assume that all the images occupy the same space the spell user occupies. Any attack that can reach the user’s space can affect an image. Emphasis mine. The spell makes sense, it just can get messy if you get too literal with the mechanic, hence it's 'easiest to assume that' all the images are in the same square. The spell text contradicts this, and clearly allows images to be 5', 10', and even further away . . .but it only matters in certain circumstances and you can manage the spell without ever actually placing the images on the board
Murrdox 04-24-07, 12:45 PM	The spell text contradicts this, and clearly allows images to be 5', 10', and even further away . . .but it only matters in certain circumstances and you can manage the spell without ever actually placing the images on the board I interpret this to mean that the images are constantly shifting, and moving about on their own as a result of a magical mirror effect. It is impossible to pin them down to being in a specific square at any given time. If an image strays outside of the caster's square, it is only during the caster's turn, while the caster is moving to another position. Thus, determining the location of the images is not important, since during all other turns, the images are clustered around the caster. If you WANTED to make the images take up squares, then the only fair way to do it would be to roll random dice to determine which squares the images are in. The player certainly doesn't get permission to place them as he or she wishes, and the spell description gives no guidelines to the DM as to how to place them besides distance from the caster. However, I still maintain that the spell's description doesn't provide rules for the images occupying squares by themselves, and thus they don't occupy squares. It is merely flavor text describing the limitations of the images' movements.
Merestil Haye 04-24-07, 01:08 PM	However, I still maintain that the spell's description doesn't provide rules for the images occupying squares by themselves, and thus they don't occupy squares. It is merely flavor text describing the limitations of the images' movements.I disagree. The phrase "within five feet of" in D&D means that the two things are in adjacent squares on the board. It is a clear implication that the images do occupy separate squares. This is confirmed by the FAQ answer cited above - if they were meant to occupy the same square, the FAQ would say that. I tend to agree that the images should not be able to surround another creature (even though it obeys the spacing restriction). It's also worth noting that if someone identifies the real caster and can convey it to allies, the allies can focus their attacks on the caster as if the images weren't there until the caster gets another turn. If the images cluster in the same space, it would be reasonable to deny that. Of course it would make it easy for a single Whirlwind or Great Cleave to knock down multiple images.
Murrdox 04-24-07, 01:40 PM	I disagree. The phrase "within five feet of" in D&D means that the two things are in adjacent squares on the board. It is a clear implication that the images do occupy separate squares. This is confirmed by the FAQ answer cited above - if they were meant to occupy the same square, the FAQ would say that. Meh, I disagree with your disagreement :) It's a really big jump to assume that "within 5 feet" means "adjacent square". They do not mean the same thing at all. For example, let's say that a diminutive creature is attacking me. He is within 5 feet of me. However, he is not in an adjacent square. He is inside my square. Diminutive creatures can't attack from adjacent squares. each within 5 feet of at least one other figment or you "within 5 feet" means everything from 1 inch to 5 feet. It is a dynamic variable. If the text said "The images maintain a distance of 5 feet from you or another image" then I would agree with you.
tos_shai_hulud 04-24-07, 01:46 PM	Hmm Flanking rules do not require you to actual attack the enemy, just being there is enough. Therefore, if the opponent thinks you are there, then that is enough for flanking This is wrong. The opponent thinking that you are there is not enough for flanking. The rules for threatened squares requires the ability to make a melee attack with a weapon that could do damage. Since the images cannot do damage, they do NOT threaten. Here is the quote again: Threatened Squares You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you’re unarmed, you don’t normally threaten any squares and thus can’t make attacks of opportunity. Note here that the description of Threatened does not say you threaten all squares into which your opponent THINKS you can make a melee attack. It requires the actual ability TO make a melee attack into the square. Additionall, if you are unarmed, you don't normally threaten any squares (unless you have improved unarmed strike). Since an image cannot BE armed, it cannot threaten. It doesn't say that if opponents don't realize that you are armed, you don't normally threaten any squares. It says if you ARE unarmed, you don't normally threaten any squares.
Mirage_1 04-24-07, 02:44 PM	you might want to rered what you posted. What you quoted simply said that "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack," It did NOT say that you must be able to actually do damage So therefore, an illusion can indeed threten, it just canot do any damage
lears_fool 04-24-07, 02:47 PM	Meh, I disagree with your disagreement :) It's a really big jump to assume that "within 5 feet" means "adjacent square". They do not mean the same thing at all. For example, let's say that a diminutive creature is attacking me. He is within 5 feet of me. However, he is not in an adjacent square. He is inside my square. Diminutive creatures can't attack from adjacent squares. "within 5 feet" means everything from 1 inch to 5 feet. It is a dynamic variable. If the text said "The images maintain a distance of 5 feet from you or another image" then I would agree with you. You must admit, however, that the wording of the spell. . i.e. These figments separate from you and remain in a cluster, each within 5 feet of at least one other figment or you.implies that it is possible (even likely) that images could be more than 5' from you, otherwise there'd be no point in stating that they must be within 5' of at last one figment OR you. Now, I'm not saying that they should flank, I think for many reasons that would not be the case (including it not being in the spell text). However the spell description allows for images to be in multiple squares. This grants a benefit that you lose if you stick rigidly to the 'they're all in one square' approach (NOT the approach described in the FAQ, but a more pure version of the same). The benefit is the enemy does not know precisely which square the caster is in. Mind you, I've yet to encounter a situation where this posed a problem, I've always just focused on the caster's square, the only time I pay attention to the multiple images is if an effect is used that would target or pass through a specific square. When that happens I simply 'fan out' the remaining images and have the bad guy act logically (i.e. try to lightning bolt to hit images and other characters if possible, etc.). It rarely takes more than a minimum of effort, yet if you're not rigid you don't take away any benefits
tos_shai_hulud 04-24-07, 02:53 PM	you might want to rered what you posted. What you quoted simply said that "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack," It did NOT say that you must be able to actually do damage So therefore, an illusion can indeed threten, it just canot do any damage By ignoring the rest of my post after reading one line that you disagree with, you are failing to make any argument at all. The image CANNOT make a melee attack. Regardless of whether it can deal damage or not. It does not possess the means, the weapons, or the physical presence required to make a melee attack. So therefore, an illusion indeed CANNOT threaten.
Mirage_1 04-24-07, 03:11 PM	By ignoring the rest of my post after reading one line that you disagree with, you are failing to make any argument at all. The image CANNOT make a melee attack. Regardless of whether it can deal damage or not. It does not possess the means, the weapons, or the physical presence required to make a melee attack. So therefore, an illusion indeed CANNOT threaten. And i am saying there is no reason that the illusion cannot make a melee attack, just that the attack cannot result in any damage
tos_shai_hulud 04-24-07, 03:24 PM	And i am saying there is no reason that the illusion cannot make a melee attack, just that the attack cannot result in any damage Then you are using House Rules. I also showed where the SRD wrote that the figment is unarmed. Holding a figment sword does not arm a figment. It cannot make armed unarmed attacks, so it doesn't threaten the square. Additionally, a melee attack is defined as: Melee Attacks With a normal melee weapon, you can strike any opponent within 5 feet. (Opponents within 5 feet are considered adjacent to you.) Some melee weapons have reach, as indicated in their descriptions. With a typical reach weapon, you can strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can’t strike adjacent foes (those within 5 feet). The figment cannot use a normal melee weapon. The figment can only use a figment weapon. It is a figment. It is not real. Its threat is not real. You need real threat to flank.
Murrdox 04-24-07, 03:34 PM	implies that it is possible (even likely) that images could be more than 5' from you, otherwise there'd be no point in stating that they must be within 5' of at last one figment OR you. You're absolutely right. Images can be more than 5' from you. It's just that in game terms, it is best to assume that most of the time all the images occupy the caster's square. Could you say otherwise? You could. However, I think the fact that the spell description: - doesn't provide a mechanic for determining which square the images occupy. - doesn't say that each image has to occupy a certain square means that for all practical purposes, the images should only occupy the same square as the caster. If you decide NOT to do it this way, and you want to determine the exact location of each image, you run into an infinite number of possibilities where the rules of the game can get screwed up. - What if an image occupies a square with cover? Suddenly your images all have different armor classes. The same thing goes for concealment. What if one image is standing inside the effect of "Obscuring Mist" but other images are not? - What if some images are inside the effect of a spell, but others aren't? What happens to an image if it strays into the area of an "Entangle" spell or "Blade Barrier" or even another illusion such as "Phantasmal Terrain" - What if line of sight or line of effect to your images is broken, such as if a wizard casts a "Wall of Stone" between you and your images? - How do you do attacks of opportunity? If the images take up their own squares, then it becomes theoretically possible for an image to provoke an attack of opportunity, which it should not be able to do. If the wizard casts a spell, and an image is standing next to a fighter, the image will act like it is casting, which should provoke an opportunity. - What if a wizard walks past a fighter, and some of his images move through the threatened area? There are a million other considerations and exceptions to take into account. Mirror Image becomes excessively complex.
SirGeshko 04-24-07, 03:37 PM	assuming they're all in the same square (can you imagine how weird that would look? I always thought of the mirror image spell looking a lot like a more solid version of the Matrix Agents dodging bullets, with a bit more horizontal movement. IIRC, the DMG has a section entitled "adjucating spell effects", the gist of which is that a spell can look like anything the DM wants to increase flavor, (IE a ray of the Enervation spell being a straight line or wiggling in the shape of a thin spectral snake, its maw open to deliver a strength draining bite) PROVIDED that the mechanics of the spell are not changed. (aforementioned snake can't squiggle around the corner due to its 'S' shaped path, for example) Basically, Mirror Image can LOOK like whatever you want. It FUNCTIONS how it says in the description; no flanking, no threatening, no wizard lineups 9 squares long. Essentially, the spell creates (at most) 9 versions of you in a 9 square block, with an 11% chance that you are actually in a location when an attack hits. If a lightning bolt goes through, there's a 33%-78% chance you're affected, depending on the path of the bolt (thanks, Miniatures, for severely complicating line effects!! =P) And that's my :twocents: EDIT: By "(at most)" I meant that's the maximum spacing the spell can achieve. There's nothing stopping the caster from pulling the images into his square. Just thought I'd clarify before I was pounced on. ^_^
lears_fool 04-24-07, 04:19 PM	You're absolutely right. Images can be more than 5' from you. It's just that in game terms, it is best to assume that most of the time all the images occupy the caster's square. Could you say otherwise? You could. However, I think the fact that the spell description: - doesn't provide a mechanic for determining which square the images occupy. - doesn't say that each image has to occupy a certain square correct means that for all practical purposes, the images should only occupy the same square as the caster. If you decide NOT to do it this way, and you want to determine the exact location of each image, you run into an infinite number of possibilities where the rules of the game can get screwed up. No, you only worry about the other squares IF something happens that would directly interact with the images that may be outside the target's square (again, lighting bolt or targeted square). Otherwise you don't worry about it and don't even think about it. Why? let's see. . - What if an image occupies a square with cover? Suddenly your images all have different armor classes. The same thing goes for concealment. What if one image is standing inside the effect of "Obscuring Mist" but other images are not? As stated in the FAQ, the images gain whatever cover/concealment benefits you do. You only actually worry about 'other' images if an attempt is made to target the caster via an effect that may or may not overlap where images are likely to be - What if some images are inside the effect of a spell, but others aren't? What happens to an image if it strays into the area of an "Entangle" spell or "Blade Barrier" or even another illusion such as "Phantasmal Terrain" If the caster is not being targeted then don't worry about it and assume the images move closer or otherwise avoid the area, it doesn't say they have to be a specific distance away or surround the caster. - What if line of sight or line of effect to your images is broken, such as if a wizard casts a "Wall of Stone" between you and your images? Again, the same. You and your images end up on the same side - How do you do attacks of opportunity? If the images take up their own squares, then it becomes theoretically possible for an image to provoke an attack of opportunity, which it should not be able to do. If the wizard casts a spell, and an image is standing next to a fighter, the image will act like it is casting, which should provoke an opportunity. Since you're only tracking the caster's square at this point, you handle it normally - What if a wizard walks past a fighter, and some of his images move through the threatened area? You treat the images as if they did not, and traveled in a straight line, through the caster's square, or on the other side. But again, you don't pay attention to them at this point. There are a million other considerations and exceptions to take into account. Mirror Image becomes excessively complex. But there AREN'T. Again, if there is no attempt to target the caster's square or catch the caster in a line/area spell then it doesn't matter at all, the images move around, through the caster's square, stay closer or move further away, whatever. . imagine it how you want, there are lots of ways you don't have to worry about it. And if an attempt is made to target the caster's square, just spread the images out 'logically' for that point in time (and try to give them each squares that fit the rules) and rule the targeter acts intelligently. If the caster is DM-controlled then make the caster aware and clarify that the bad guy could be in any of the adjacent squares in actuality (simple enough) if they try to use a line/square/area spell that wouldn't encompass all the images. In practice it's REALLY easy, and that's precisely what the FAQ describes. . it doesn't say 'all the images are in the same square', it says 'it's easier to assume'. . not 'it is'. You can handle the spell just fine without changing the spell to make it stronger OR weaker.
meabolex 04-24-07, 05:04 PM	The figment can only use a figment weapon. It is a figment. It is not real. Its threat is not real. While I've taken both sides of this debate, there's no logical basis that a threat is not real just because what is threatening is not real. If I don't have Weapons of Mass Destruction but instead have Illusory Weapons of Mass Destruction and the illusion fools you (you fail your Intelligence check), you are still threatened by them -- even if they're non-existent. (HARHAR it's a joke don't ban me.) I believe the problem is that within a mechanical ambiguity, the typical DM response is to fill the void with common sense. If something is threatening you with a knife, you feel threatened - the fact that it is a figment knife and a figment. . . something is irrelevant.
lears_fool 04-24-07, 05:19 PM	I believe the problem is that within a mechanical ambiguity, the typical DM response is to fill the void with common sense. If something is threatening you with a knife, you feel threatened - the fact that it is a figment knife and a figment. . . something is irrelevant. I think the problem is that the mechanical ambiguity is caused by a part of the mechanic that completely violates how people work and common sense. I've yet to encounter a situation .. combat or not. .where myself and those involved take turns alternating our actions and restrict ourselves to 5' spacing And if we're not, then the ambiguity's not an issue, the figments don't 'flank' because they don't remain in the same space to flank, they move and flow and can have the game effect without the confusion. The attempt to apply common sense fails only if you apply common sense selectively.
meabolex 04-24-07, 05:35 PM	I think the problem is that the mechanical ambiguity is caused by a part of the mechanic that completely violates how people work and common sense. I've yet to encounter a situation .. combat or not. .where myself and those involved take turns alternating our actions and restrict ourselves to 5' spacing And if we're not, then the ambiguity's not an issue, the figments don't 'flank' because they don't remain in the same space to flank, they move and flow and can have the game effect without the confusion. The attempt to apply common sense fails only if you apply common sense selectively. Yes, people have a hard time with abstraction, which is all the D&D rule system is - a big abstraction. And D&D, with its many leaky abstractions, isn't always going to produce clean and pristine provably plausible scenarios. Combining common sense logic and an overly complicated rule isn't going to solve the problem -- something plus a big mess usually just equals a big mess. I tend to file all these situations as DM dependent - how you define the resolution is based on filling ambiguity with something else: common sense, insanity, whatever. As DM, it's probably more important to be consistent in the application of how you fill ambiguity than what you fill the ambiguity with.
tos_shai_hulud 04-24-07, 06:33 PM	While I've taken both sides of this debate, there's no logical basis that a threat is not real just because what is threatening is not real. If I don't have Weapons of Mass Destruction but instead have Illusory Weapons of Mass Destruction and the illusion fools you (you fail your Intelligence check), you are still threatened by them -- even if they're non-existent. (HARHAR it's a joke don't ban me.) I believe the problem is that within a mechanical ambiguity, the typical DM response is to fill the void with common sense. If something is threatening you with a knife, you feel threatened - the fact that it is a figment knife and a figment. . . something is irrelevant. Flanking is not about feeling threatened. It is about being threatened. A person who does not have the feat Improved Unarmed Strike cannot threaten an opponent without a weapon. Why? Is it because I don't feel threatened? A person with a ranged weapon cannot threaten a person next to him either. Why is that? Having an arrow pointed at you at point-blank range would seem pretty threatening to me. It is not about perceived threat. It is about the ability to act upon that threat. The figment fails to have the ability to act upon his threat, perceived or not.
Mirage_1 04-24-07, 07:47 PM	Flanking is not about feeling threatened. It is about being threatened. A person who does not have the feat Improved Unarmed Strike cannot threaten an opponent without a weapon. Why? Is it because I don't feel threatened? A person with a ranged weapon cannot threaten a person next to him either. Why is that? Having an arrow pointed at you at point-blank range would seem pretty threatening to me. It is not about perceived threat. It is about the ability to act upon that threat. The figment fails to have the ability to act upon his threat, perceived or not. Hmmm, this may answer a bit. Lets present the exact opposite scenario and perhaps it will shed light on our perceptions P = PC O = Opponent I = invisible PC POI Now for the question: If the invisible PC has not made hmself known, so that the opponent has absolutely no knowledge of his presence, does "P" get the benefits from flanking? If you say it is purely mechanics then yes If it is percieved threat then it is no For me, "P" would not get any benefit of flanking until the opponent has some knowledge of an enemy next to him. I must admit to being curious as to your thoughts. Shoot, I am also curious if there are any rules for this situation that I am blanking on.
tos_shai_hulud 04-24-07, 08:15 PM	I would say yes, both attackers gain the flanking bonus. Well, here are some answers from the FAQ: If a creature has 0 reach, it must enter an enemy’s square to attack that enemy, correct? If the creature enters the enemy’s square, does it now threaten the enemy? Is it possible for the creature to flank the enemy? If so, where would an ally need to be positioned to flank the enemy? If you’re armed and you’re in a position to make a melee attack against a foe, you threaten that foe (see Threatened Squares under the Attacks of Opportunity section in Chapter 8 of the Player’s Handbook). To be armed you must wield a weapon or have natural weaponry. If your reach is 0, you can threaten foes in the same square with you only. A creature with a reach of 0 cannot flank an opponent (see Flanking in Chapter 8 of the Player’s Handbook). Such a creature can neither gain a flanking bonus from an ally nor grant a flanking bonus to an ally, not even when two or more of them enter the same foe’s square and attack. Even if an enemy is being attacked from his front and behind, he is not flanked by Tiny or Smaller creatures. (In fact, tiny or smaller creatures cannot even flank each other). Undead and constructs are immune to critical hits but are they immune to flanking as well? No. A construct or undead creature can be flanked normally unless its description specifically indicates otherwise. So mindless creatures can be flanked, even though they have no understanding of threat, perceived or otherwise. These are the only examples I could find in the FAQ about flanking that shed any light on this at all.
Merestil Haye 04-24-07, 08:34 PM	Even if an enemy is being attacked from his front and behind, he is not flanked by Tiny or Smaller creatures. (In fact, tiny or smaller creatures cannot even flank each other)This is one of those cases where the FAQ turns out to be wrong. From the DMG page 29, we learn that one creature occupying part of a larger opponents space grants flanking to all allies in a position to threaten the opponent, whether in that opponent's space or not. A Tiny creature can thus provide flanking for another Tiny creature if both are attacking the same Medium-sized opponent (the DMG example is a group of Stirges against a Human. It explicitly states the Stirges in the human's space grant each other flanking).
lears_fool 04-24-07, 09:30 PM	This is one of those cases where the FAQ turns out to be wrong. From the DMG page 29, we learn that one creature occupying part of a larger opponents space grants flanking to all allies in a position to threaten the opponent, whether in that opponent's space or not. A Tiny creature can thus provide flanking for another Tiny creature if both are attacking the same Medium-sized opponent (the DMG example is a group of Stirges against a Human. It explicitly states the Stirges in the human's space grant each other flanking). Perhaps it's been updated. . . is that the 3.5 DMG or the 3.0? From the SRD Flanking When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by a character or creature friendly to you on the opponent’s opposite border or opposite corner. When in doubt about whether two friendly characters flank an opponent in the middle, trace an imaginary line between the two friendly characters’ centers. If the line passes through opposite borders of the opponent’s space (including corners of those borders), then the opponent is flanked. Exception: If a flanker takes up more than 1 square, it gets the flanking bonus if any square it occupies counts for flanking. Only a creature or character that threatens the defender can help an attacker get a flanking bonus. Creatures with a reach of 0 feet can’t flank an opponent. (bolded for emphasis) And of course there are other conditions (grappled, paralyzed, helpless, etc.) in which a target can be 'there' but not provide a flanking bonus. However, again, we're trying too hard to tie a very artificial mechanic to reality. It's best to assume that during the full six seconds something that gains flanking does so because it's able to engage a target, not because it's 'there', but because it's able to provide a distraction. Again. .six fully seconds, plenty of time for multiple interactions and contact with the mechanic allowing for a fixed number of potential solid blows during that timeframe. . even an invisible creature could theoretically touch/taunt/poke or otherwise interact in a way that does not actually constitute an 'attack action' (another not terribly realistic mechanic). If you don't overliteralize one part while forgetting that it's built upon a mechanic very simplified from reality you don't hurt the neurons as much ;)
Merestil Haye 04-25-07, 04:51 AM	Perhaps it's been updated. . . is that the 3.5 DMG or the 3.0?It's 3.5. Remember, not everything in the books is included in the SRD. This is one of those cases. The SRD is incomplete because it does not include the DMG information, and depending on it alone results in an error. The PHB is written to allow players to play the game. With the info in the PHB, players don't need to know how ho creatures of sizes other than Small or Medium are handled in combat, so such information was shunted off to the DMG. Where the Sage overlooked it too.
lears_fool 04-25-07, 08:48 AM	It's 3.5. Remember, not everything in the books is included in the SRD. This is one of those cases. The SRD is incomplete because it does not include the DMG information, and depending on it alone results in an error. The PHB is written to allow players to play the game. With the info in the PHB, players don't need to know how ho creatures of sizes other than Small or Medium are handled in combat, so such information was shunted off to the DMG. Where the Sage overlooked it too. *shrug* most people I know give the SRD precedence, as the errata's already incorporated. I also use it as a final word for 'all things official' However, given the way the mechanic works, I wouldn't fault a DM for allowing a stirge to flank for a stirge on the other side of one for example, it's far from irrational. Either way, we've kind of drifited into a new topic :)
meabolex 04-25-07, 11:40 AM	Flanking is not about feeling threatened. It is about being threatened. A person who does not have the feat Improved Unarmed Strike cannot threaten an opponent without a weapon. Why? Is it because I don't feel threatened? A person with a ranged weapon cannot threaten a person next to him either. Why is that? Having an arrow pointed at you at point-blank range would seem pretty threatening to me. It is not about perceived threat. It is about the ability to act upon that threat. The figment fails to have the ability to act upon his threat, perceived or not. An excellent way to phrase the issue that isn't muddled with "perceived" common sense. Thanks (:
Toast_recon 04-27-07, 09:59 PM	Ok, here s my run-down on mirror image. 1. Wh ywould you make a melee attack, it will just go right through, I cannot think of a reason why you would make a melee attack for no damage 2 I guess you could say that it does not "actually" threaten, but have your monsters act as if they were threatened. Besides AoO and other things that involve phisical contact, for all intensive purposes, images threaten 3 I do not think that there is a problem here, or that this is broken. It is actually quite simple 4 What about things such as glare attacks? I would lead to no. 5 Intimidate and diplomacy checks and such made by figment, again, I would say no. 6 I am not a fan of the cluster idea. I would allow people to do it as dm, but would not use it as a player. 7 As to this whole perseived thing, if threating is about being able to act upon that threat, then why does flanking do no damage? Do you mean to say that you have to attack to flank?You explained it very well, I just think your idea is a little weird.And I believe flanking is an opponent being close enough to distract an enemy. Now I think I would be distracted by an image if he looked perfectly real. My concentration would be divided, which I believe, in essense, is flanking. If flanking is about acting upon a threat, then why do you take no damage from the flanker. Acting upon your common sense, a flanker would not only have to look threatening, but also need to phisically attack the *flankee?* yet I only see a bonus to attack rolls, but not damage rolls. So, where is the damage? If the person thinks you can act upon a threat, you can distract them. And your unarmed strike section is invalid because, indeed, your figment "has" your equipment, as far as your enemy can tell. 8 I see that we are never going to change each other's minds so..... 9 Listen to your DM!
Velvis 04-28-07, 12:24 AM	An excellent way to phrase the issue that isn't muddled with "perceived" common sense. Thanks (: It may be convenient to look at it that way, however, an illusion by its nature, is a matter of perception. The problem here is that the concept of flanking isn't actually applied consistently. I'm fairly sure the concept of "why you gain a bonus" is explained somewhere, as opposed to just the "how you gain the bonus" which is repeated many times. But, for the sake of argument, I think it's fairly obvious that a flanking bonus is awarded because the target is forced to attempt to dodge/avoid perceived potential attacks from two opposite targets, thus diminishing their usual ability to do so. Going with that, we can see that a figment should gain flanking ability simply because, to the target, it could potentially deliver damage and is presumably dodging around just as the caster would be. (Obviously, this is predicated on the actual caster being armed and dangerous, as it were, and ignoring the inscrutable idea that ranged weapons and unarmed attacks are somehow not a threat (odd that a human with bare fist is not a threat, yet a halfling with a dagger is, though they have the same damage potential, reach, and with similar crunch, exact same everything else)). Also, since an attacker doesn't ever have to actually deal damage to be threatening, they are, in effect, exactly the same as a figment that can't ever deal damage, from the perspective of a duped target. So, if we take this idea and apply mechanics and not logic, a mirror image spell (as an example) that places images in separate squares ceases to have any actual effect at all on "confounding" the target (as the SRD description of figments puts it). To whit: if a target is surrounded by images, they should automatically know which of the "images" is the true caster. Why? Simple: Because the figments cannot attack (which is a semantic issue in itself), they therefore are supposed to not be able to threaten. If they cannot threaten, they cannot provide a flanking bonus. A flanking bonus is gained because a target is dividing its attention between two foes opposite each other, rendering it signficantly more difficult to dodge/avoid both foes, thus both gain a bonus. If a figment cannot flank or threaten, then it presumes that the target is not actively bothering to dodge them (because they are not giving away a flanking bonus) as they pose no threat--and they somehow know that. However, they do actively dodge the real caster (assuming he is armed/able to threaten), by default without the messy issue of how they know the caster is the caster and not another ignorable image. (That the figments and the real caster are visually identical and one can threaten because it holds a real dagger and the rest illusionary ones, makes no logical sense without a fair amount of extra work.) Thus, a victim should easily and automatically know which vision of the caster is the real caster simply by knowing which is a threat, given that all the illusionary ones are incapable of threatening. Again, the target somehow automatically knows both conditions and to which "image" either applies. So, by the very game mechanics that deny a figment the ability to flank for a real opponent, they are rendered fundamentally nonexistent as the victim is only threatened by one opponent, the rest obviously being irrelevant. The mirror image spell actually forces a victim to attack targets that it already should know are not a threat by virtue of the mechanics that define that aspect. Of interest is that in the skirmishing rules in the Miniatures Handbook, it states that an illusion can be placed in a square and, though it cannot make attacks or take actions, it does serve as a flanking buddy. I'm not sure this is really canon or if those rules are bypassing normal rules. In sum, I like the FAQ suggestion. It's tidier, avoids "stupid" exceptions and logic-tossing, and still provides similar usefulness--moreso if figment flanking and such would not be allowed by the GM, anyway. Oh, and as an aside: Lets try this again. They are constantly moving into and out of the caster's square, indicating that no matter how far away they are, they are not staying there long enough to flank anything. There is one square through which they all pass, I don't think any of that is actually in the description (unless you're reading something other than the 3.5 PHB.) Actual relevant passage: "You can move into and through a mirror image. When you and the mirror image separate, observers can’t use vision or hearing to tell which one is you and which the image. The figments may also move through each other." (Heh, though somehow the victim can tell if one is a threat and one isn't...whee!) And there was a question about whether an invisible foe provides flanking--the reply was yes, however, I think it's actually no. Generally, a victim that cannot see its attacker is denied its Dexterity bonus to AC. Extrapolating from that, an invisible or otherwise unperceived foe can't cause a victim to "subdivide its dodging/avoiding" against a foe it can't see, thus it can't yield a flanking bonus. Again, this all depends on why a flanking bonus is granted. If one doesn't agree with my explanation above (and if you can find "RAW" explanatory text on this, please state where--it's annoying not being able to find it), then most of what I just posted is not going to fly. Extra: In a Rules of the Game article (I think regarding Sneak Attacks), as well as a roundabout way in the entry on invisibility in the Miniatures Handbook (again), it is stated that a victim that can't see one or both members of a flanking pair does not "give away" a flanking bonus for the reasons presented above re why a flanking bonus is granted at all. I think this applies in all cases where a victim cannot perceive (whether by sight, blindsense, or otherwise) both foes. That, at least, makes sense. 8 I see that we are never going to change each other's minds so..... Some of this isn't opinion, though, it's RAW. The problem, as I've stated it, is that the concept of flanking isn't really sensible as it is applied in various instances. Illusions have been nerfed in many ways since the old days, and many of the potential uses have been left open but partially unsupported and often beyond their intended power-level when used cleverly. It's just...kinda messy. They're tough beans to globally rule for, so your #9 is the way to go.
meabolex 04-28-07, 02:29 AM	It may be convenient to look at it that way, however, an illusion by its nature, is a matter of perception. The problem here is that the concept of flanking isn't actually applied consistently. I'm fairly sure the concept of "why you gain a bonus" is explained somewhere, as opposed to just the "how you gain the bonus" which is repeated many times. But, for the sake of argument, I think it's fairly obvious that a flanking bonus is awarded because the target is forced to attempt to dodge/avoid perceived potential attacks from two opposite targets, thus diminishing their usual ability to do so. Going with that, we can see that a figment should gain flanking ability simply because, to the target, it could potentially deliver damage and is presumably dodging around just as the caster would be. (Obviously, this is predicated on the actual caster being armed and dangerous, as it were, and ignoring the inscrutable idea that ranged weapons and unarmed attacks are somehow not a threat (odd that a human with bare fist is not a threat, yet a halfling with a dagger is, though they have the same damage potential, reach, and with similar crunch, exact same everything else)). Also, since an attacker doesn't ever have to actually deal damage to be threatening, they are, in effect, exactly the same as a figment that can't ever deal damage, from the perspective of a duped target. So, if we take this idea and apply mechanics and not logic, a mirror image spell (as an example) that places images in separate squares ceases to have any actual effect at all on "confounding" the target (as the SRD description of figments puts it). To whit: if a target is surrounded by images, they should automatically know which of the "images" is the true caster. Why? Simple: Because the figments cannot attack (which is a semantic issue in itself), they therefore are supposed to not be able to threaten. If they cannot threaten, they cannot provide a flanking bonus. A flanking bonus is gained because a target is dividing its attention between two foes opposite each other, rendering it signficantly more difficult to dodge/avoid both foes, thus both gain a bonus. If a figment cannot flank or threaten, then it presumes that the target is not actively bothering to dodge them (because they are not giving away a flanking bonus) as they pose no threat--and they somehow know that. However, they do actively dodge the real caster (assuming he is armed/able to threaten), by default without the messy issue of how they know the caster is the caster and not another ignorable image. (That the figments and the real caster are visually identical and one can threaten because it holds a real dagger and the rest illusionary ones, makes no logical sense without a fair amount of extra work.) Thus, a victim should easily and automatically know which vision of the caster is the real caster simply by knowing which is a threat, given that all the illusionary ones are incapable of threatening. Again, the target somehow automatically knows both conditions and to which "image" either applies. So, by the very game mechanics that deny a figment the ability to flank for a real opponent, they are rendered fundamentally nonexistent as the victim is only threatened by one opponent, the rest obviously being irrelevant. The mirror image spell actually forces a victim to attack targets that it already should know are not a threat by virtue of the mechanics that define that aspect. Of interest is that in the skirmishing rules in the Miniatures Handbook, it states that an illusion can be placed in a square and, though it cannot make attacks or take actions, it does serve as a flanking buddy. I'm not sure this is really canon or if those rules are bypassing normal rules. In sum, I like the FAQ suggestion. It's tidier, avoids "stupid" exceptions and logic-tossing, and still provides similar usefulness--moreso if figment flanking and such would not be allowed by the GM, anyway. Well, where do we stop this matter of perception? Frightful Presence is entirely based around the concept of presence. That is, any property of the presence should be possible to simulate with something like a major image spell. Since its an extraordinary ability, FP has no magical/supernatural property. Major image can recreate a figment with any perceivable sensual input (as long as it doesn't cause damage or cause "real" effects). Is it fair to give illusions frightful presence? Is that not a "real" effect? Or is it just perception? The most logical solution is to simply let the rules define the game rather than what we feel the rules should define. Yes, it seems sensible that flanking is an "unreal" effect, but unfortunately in game terms it is very much real. I've argued on both sides of this issue and I see your point. But in a fantasy roleplaying game, sometimes you have to check your reasoning at the door (: BTW, I was not aware of the skirmishing text on illusions. . . do you happen to have a page number on that in the MH?
tos_shai_hulud 04-28-07, 05:37 PM	I am not going to respond to individual quotes. The problem here is the concept of flanking seems to confuse people. Let's break it down: 1x2xx xxxx1 That is not a flanking situation. Does that mean that 2 is not bothering to dodge one of the attackers? No. Flanking is a mechanism that if two enemies with the ability to attack are on opposite sides, they gain bonuses to attack. No, an attack action is not necessary, but the ability to attack is. Lets use another example: 1 2 1 Both of the 1's are striking unarmed, but do not have the Improved Unarmed Strike feat. The 1's are not flanking. Why? They meet the criteria of being on opposite sides. They are BOTH attacking. What fails? The issue is that they are not threatening 2. Let's say that 2 is a 1st level commoner and the 1s are 50th level demigods. 2 is still not "threatened" by either of the 1s in game mechanic terms. These are only game mechanics. If you want figments to have the ability to flank, then add it to your game. The RAW give mechanics for how to play. If you don't like them, don't use them.
Toast_recon 04-28-07, 08:12 PM	look, whether you CAN attack or whether you CAN'T is irrelevant. Flanking may be the charecter dodging blows, I agree with that, but as YOU attack, your images attack also(read the spell description). So what your opponent SEES is two people attacking it, not knowing which is real. It has to try to dodge both. By the time it realizes which is real and which isn't, the attack roll is done, and it is on to the damage roll. Obviously the tiny "attacks" flanker makes are always dodged, which means that your opponent never realizes who it is that is real until you attack, and by the time you hit and it realizes you're the real one, you are done. there is no chance to dodge. By the time he realizes who is real, it is too late. The distraction was a succesful one. And NO, this is not clearly stated in raw, why you flank is as relevant as how you flank. EDIT: THe reason FAQ did the all in one square thing was to solve these problems, not because they meant to do it all along. They figured these arguments would be unnecessary if the images and you were all in one square. That way, any of the squares the images may threaten would be the same ones you threaten.(they are really clever!)
tos_shai_hulud 04-28-07, 09:16 PM	And NO, this is not clearly stated in raw, why you flank is as relevant as how you flank. If you can find a way to put a nonfigment weapon into the hands of a figment image, then I will agree that the figments can flank. Until then, the figments are as unarmed as the 50th level demigods in the description above and cannot flank.
lears_fool 04-28-07, 11:40 PM	You guys are making it hard again. Mirror images don't flank, it is not stated in the spell text. Why? Who knows, as what 'flanking' really entails is not clearly stated. . but it could easily be because the images don't remain in flanking position or because flanking requires some degree of interaction. But whatever it is, if you just generally track the player's square (as described in the FAQ) and only mentally position the images if there's a line/area of effect spell that a bad guy would have to target via squares, then it's amazingly easy to handle mirror images. These mechanics are VERY artificial, real people do NOT remain in evenly spaced five foot squares and do NOT politely take turns while the others act. There's no point in trying to use too much common sense one one part of the mechanics while ignoring the fact that another part is making the debate possible.
tos_shai_hulud 04-29-07, 07:03 PM	We know why images don't flank. Images do not threaten. You must threaten to be able to flank. Now, an image could get the flank bonus from an ally that is flanking, but the image cannot use the flanking bonus.
Toki_Wartooth 04-30-07, 12:18 PM	As a point of trivia: The 2nd ed. rules for mirror image detailed it as a 6-foot radius effect.
Toast_recon 04-30-07, 04:06 PM	If you can find a way to put a nonfigment weapon into the hands of a figment image, then I will agree that the figments can flank. Until then, the figments are as unarmed as the 50th level demigods in the description above and cannot flank. {sarcasm}to distract someone.....I see.{sarcasm} Edit: and the images can stay in flanking position if you want them to, because you decide where they go. REad the description on flanking, the spell description and others because you are stating things as facts that simply are not true.
Toast_recon 04-30-07, 04:07 PM	If you can find a way to put a nonfigment weapon into the hands of a figment image, then I will agree that the figments can flank. Until then, the figments are as unarmed as the 50th level demigods in the description above and cannot flank. {sarcasm}ahh, so the weapon has to be real to distract someone.....I see.{sarcasm}
tos_shai_hulud 04-30-07, 04:18 PM	No, if you want distraction rules, see the bluff skill. Flanking has specific requirements in D&D. It has to be a real weapon to flank. Flanking is a condition, not some philisophical combat tactic. An image does not meet the requirements of the condition, so the condition cannot occur.
mvincent 04-30-07, 04:49 PM	{sarcasm}ahh, so the weapon has to be real to distract someone.....I see.{sarcasm}As mentioned: it has to be real to Flank them in D&D. Using the D&D mechanics: one could not flank with an illusionary weapon (but they could with an invisible sword). In D&D 'distract' isn't necessarily the same thing as 'flank', and vise-verse. Feel free to change the rule as you like for your own game... we're just providing strict rules information.
Toast_recon 04-30-07, 05:30 PM	you know, I am starting to doubt myself a little( where did I read that passage on the idea of flanking?) but I think that the requirements for flanking weren't intended to be used in situations with illusions. I agree mechanics are very important, as is balance, but if you picture it in your mind, it doesn't add up that if the two never make physical contact that somehow, magically(this term isn't as effective in dnd ), the defender instantly knows the image is not real and is not in anyway distracted by an image. As far as it knows there is a fully armed pc casting spells and attacking right next to it. I don't know about you, but I would be worried. Unfortunately, the writers can't write a different set of rules or a "you can't" sentence for every situation.(hello dnd encyclopedia volume 4:Flanking) I, personally will leave it up to you( I am a little split myself) but just remember, when they are typing the rules up, they are not thinking about incorpreal flanking, and invisible flanking, and illusional flanking, and diminutive creature flanking, and unarmed flanking.....etc.
sontefir 05-01-07, 04:49 AM	See, I always saw Mirror Image as really simple, with the only bit I had to ask questions about being the impact of blur/displacement and such (which is in the FAQ). 1) x images are created. 2) an opponent striking at you ends up striking either you or an image randomly 3) If an opponent hits an image, they 'pop', you don't 'pop' so he can continue to attack you 4) at the beginning of your turn you can 'blend' with your images freely, so they have to find you again 5) the images are 'a ways' apart, so ray and touch attacks also have the same chance of hitting an image. And that's really it. If an effect's targeted (including a swallow attempt from the earlier thread, since it's presume something's actually aiming even if it does have a huge mouth) it's subject to the same restrictions. An area of effect spell is not but doesn't pop the images. Ten points. Astetics, unfortunately, follow rules in precedence on this one. The only real thing to do is "follow the RAW formula and then describe the final result with physical happenings in-game." Hence the difference between astetics and mechanics. The enemy IN GAME hits the wrong image! lol! The enemy at the table may have swung right at your square, or tried to, but the die roll must be explained by the astetics, not vice-versa. you know, I am starting to doubt myself a little( where did I read that passage on the idea of flanking?) but I think that the requirements for flanking weren't intended to be used in situations with illusions. I agree mechanics are very important, as is balance, but if you picture it in your mind, it doesn't add up that if the two never make physical contact that somehow, magically(this term isn't as effective in dnd ), the defender instantly knows the image is not real and is not in anyway distracted by an image. As far as it knows there is a fully armed pc casting spells and attacking right next to it. I don't know about you, but I would be worried. Unfortunately, the writers can't write a different set of rules or a "you can't" sentence for every situation.(hello dnd encyclopedia volume 4:Flanking) I, personally will leave it up to you( I am a little split myself) but just remember, when they are typing the rules up, they are not thinking about incorpreal flanking, and invisible flanking, and illusional flanking, and diminutive creature flanking, and unarmed flanking.....etc. I believe that an illusion of you would be threatening if you were actively attacking the enemy. ie if you weren't dancing around using the spell to stay out of harm's way you'd be convincing and more menacing, but as it is all your images are being defensive when you cast this spell. Otherwise it would look rediculous; picture a small crowd of rogues, only one of which is near enough to strike, all striking menacing poses at once. You're really thinking more like a bluff check or a feint I think. I'd give you a +2 on a bluff in this circumstance.
Toast_recon 05-01-07, 03:16 PM	I guess I could live with that. But still I must wonder, what do you think flaning represents, I mean, what would flanking look like if not someone worrying about the person next to them?
lears_fool 05-01-07, 04:19 PM	I guess I could live with that. But still I must wonder, what do you think flaning represents, I mean, what would flanking look like if not someone worrying about the person next to them? It's just a balancing game mechanic. I've always assumed it didn't just mean 'someone near you', because that doesn't make sense either. . after all I'd be at least as threatened by an archer 15' away drawing a bead on me as I would some guy with a sword who at least I can respond to, y'know? It MAY be that there's no realistic way to describe it. I tend to think of 'flanking' as a situation where someone is not just threatening you but actually able to interact with you and get you off balance. I see a round as a timeframe where all the combatants are exchanging blows and the actual 'attacks' as times when they can get good hits. . so I see 'flanking' as a time in which you're stuck exchanging blows of some sort with people on both sides rather than just having people 'there'
Toki_Wartooth 05-01-07, 04:22 PM	I guess I could live with that. But still I must wonder, what do you think flaning represents, I mean, what would flanking look like if not someone worrying about the person next to them?It is not so much worrying about someone as dealing with them... perhaps via parrying, blocking or stepping out of the way of half-hearted probing jabs (that often have incidental contact). If you were not making an effort to do this, then these probing jabs could become actual attacks (i.e. that is the premise behind attacks of opportunities) However, since figments cannot attack, they could not make these probing jabs.
Mirage_1 05-01-07, 05:04 PM	It is not so much worrying about someone as dealing with them... perhaps via parrying, blocking or stepping out of the way of half-hearted probing jabs (that often have incidental contact). If you were not making an effort to do this, then these probing jabs could become actual attacks (i.e. that is the premise behind attacks of opportunities) However, since figments cannot attack, they could not make these probing jabs. I follow your logic, but that would seem to easily indicate that the figments were fake, as they cannot make nor block probing attacks
tos_shai_hulud 05-01-07, 05:25 PM	I follow your logic, but that would seem to easily indicate that the figments were fake, as they cannot make nor block probing attacks Not necessarily. Maybe it makes it appear that all enemies are fake. Have you ever seen a movie where someone was surrounded by images? He attempts to stab at each of them, only to find that there is nothing there. What happens next? The real guy waits for his back to be turned and strikes out at him. That could be a feint, pretending that the real one is still just an image. And as previously mentioned, while the rules don't specifically mention it, a circumstantial bonus on the bluff check may definitely be in order.
Mirage_1 05-01-07, 05:29 PM	Not necessarily. Maybe it makes it appear that all enemies are fake. Have you ever seen a movie where someone was surrounded by images? He attempts to stab at each of them, only to find that there is nothing there. What happens next? The real guy waits for his back to be turned and strikes out at him. That could be a feint, pretending that the real one is still just an image. And as previously mentioned, while the rules don't specifically mention it, a circumstantial bonus on the bluff check may definitely be in order. hmm, your example sounds like he got flanking bonus on his attack
mvincent 05-01-07, 05:40 PM	I follow your logic, but that would seem to easily indicate that the figments were fake, as they cannot make nor block probing attacksJust because something does not threaten (i.e. probe) does not mean they are fake... I know lots of 'real' PC's that hardly ever threaten. Perhaps they are just standing towards the rear of their square and are not engaging in melee at all. Besides, the combat system is abstract to begin with... the rules don't have to follow real-life logic to still be rules (in fact, D&D has many rules like that).
tos_shai_hulud 05-01-07, 05:47 PM	hmm, your example sounds like he got flanking bonus on his attack Really? Because to me it sounds like he was attacked by an invisible attacker. It sounds like he lost his dex bonus to AC because he didn't see the attack coming from behind (much like the results of a failed feint check).
Mirage_1 05-01-07, 06:41 PM	Just because something does not threaten (i.e. probe) does not mean they are fake... I know lots of 'real' PC's that hardly ever threaten. Perhaps they are just standing towards the rear of their square and are not engaging in melee at all. Besides, the combat system is abstract to begin with... the rules don't have to follow real-life logic to still be rules (in fact, D&D has many rules like that). I agree with you. My comment was in regard to the posting the the flanking benefit as due to probing attacks (which a figment cannot do) and not just standing there (which a figment can do). If the arguement is the probing attacks (giving and receiving) gives the flank, then you can quickly identify any figment If the argument is that your just standing there gives the flank, then that is saying that the flank is due to the peceived potential of a threat and therefore figments should give flanking benefit
Mirage_1 05-01-07, 06:43 PM	Really? Because to me it sounds like he was attacked by an invisible attacker. It sounds like he lost his dex bonus to AC because he didn't see the attack coming from behind (much like the results of a failed feint check). hmm, sounds like you are arguing that if you have a tons of fakes twirling about that you disguising your actual location that you should be treated as invisible...much more useful than flanking. Or am i missing something :D
tos_shai_hulud 05-01-07, 06:54 PM	hmm, sounds like you are arguing that if you have a tons of fakes twirling about that you disguising your actual location that you should be treated as invisible...much more useful than flanking. Or am i missing something :D I would allow it in my game. If the enemy was not sure which image I was, I would grant that as giving the ability to make a hide check. If the hide was successful, then yes, they could attack from being invisible. I would never grant automatic invisibility. Alternatively, I would grant them a bonus on a Bluff check for a feint with the bonus being equal to the number of images created divided by two (round down). Seems fair to me. If there are eight images, then the player has a +4 Circumstance bonus on Bluff checks made to feint. I might even apply the same bonus to hide checks. Edit: I guess my point is that from a balance perspective, I don't mind allowing additional benefits from spells, but they are not automatic. They require a check or an action of some sort to take advantage of. Since feinting and hiding have combat rules, I don't mind granting bonuses to those abilities. Circumstance bonuses are completely up to the DM, but I can definitely see one applying in this situation.
Toast_recon 05-01-07, 07:05 PM	Let's just agree to disagree. We have all gotten are points across.(who needs a debate club if you have got this site)
lears_fool 05-01-07, 07:09 PM	I agree with you. My comment was in regard to the posting the the flanking benefit as due to probing attacks (which a figment cannot do) and not just standing there (which a figment can do). If the arguement is the probing attacks (giving and receiving) gives the flank, then you can quickly identify any figment If the argument is that your just standing there gives the flank, then that is saying that the flank is due to the peceived potential of a threat and therefore figments should give flanking benefit Okay, I'll agree that it's hard, combining real world logic with the very abstract game mechanics, to explain why a caster would flank while his images would not. It's easy to explain why they wouldn't, but not why the caster necessarily would if they were 'copying' him. However, it's a VERY VERY abstract and illogical mechanic. .both the flanking AND the mirror image mechanics. It's really best NOT to over-analyze, as the system violates logic many times in the interest in game play. It's kind of like complaining that the car in monopoly should move faster than the hat.
Toast_recon 05-01-07, 07:11 PM	aye but as I said before, do you really think they had illusions in mind when they wrote this? Edit: the mechanics, of course.
tos_shai_hulud 05-01-07, 07:30 PM	aye but as I said before, do you really think they had illusions in mind when they wrote this? Edit: the mechanics, of course. I don't think anyone is disagreeing with this. In fact, I counted eight posts in this thread that recommend that you use house rules if you don't agree with the official rules.
lears_fool 05-01-07, 07:33 PM	I don't think anyone is disagreeing with this. In fact, I counted eight posts in this thread that recommend that you use house rules if you don't agree with the official rules. Though keep in mind the official rules (images do not flank, don't bother tracking them unless it's important, but they do also effectively apply to square-targeting effects) are well enough balanced. There's no good reason to houserule in a way that allows flanking without raising the level of the spell.
Toast_recon 05-01-07, 07:51 PM	I was merely saying that we shouldn't take the flanking requirements as strictly because they weren't thinking of mirror image when writing them. I was suggesting a different interpretation of the rules, not a house rule. I was thinking, though, would it matter if they did? Unless this spell is abused there is no real difference whichever ruling you take. It isn't going to greatly impact the game if you rule that images flank. or will it?:plotting:
tos_shai_hulud 05-01-07, 08:51 PM	I was merely saying that we shouldn't take the flanking requirements as strictly because they weren't thinking of mirror image when writing them. I was suggesting a different interpretation of the rules, not a house rule. I was thinking, though, would it matter if they did? Unless this spell is abused there is no real difference whichever ruling you take. It isn't going to greatly impact the game if you rule that images flank. or will it?:plotting: Your suggesting a different set of rules. The flanking requirements are RAW. Using less strict requirements is not RAW. That is a house rule. You are not interpreting the RAW differently. You are changing them. There is nothing wrong with that. Feel free to change the rules if it suits your game. But it is still a house ruling. For people who want to use RAW-only rules, they should not allow images to flank. For people who want a more realistic set of rules should consider this more carefully and may agree that images should provide flank. Then again, they may not agree. Realistic can be very subjective, depending on the description given. Whatever description you go with, that will indicate how you should adjudicate flanking rules. For those who wish to forgo description, they can simply rely on the abstractions of the RAW and allow it to suffice.
lears_fool 05-01-07, 11:08 PM	Your suggesting a different set of rules. The flanking requirements are RAW. Using less strict requirements is not RAW. That is a house rule. You are not interpreting the RAW differently. You are changing them. There is nothing wrong with that. Feel free to change the rules if it suits your game. But it is still a house ruling. For people who want to use RAW-only rules, they should not allow images to flank. For people who want a more realistic set of rules should consider this more carefully and may agree that images should provide flank. Then again, they may not agree. Realistic can be very subjective, depending on the description given. I'd argue against any 'realistic justification' that involves leaving an absolute level of turn-based mechanics and 5' squares in place, since they are far more unrealistic than the 'reality' that's being argued. And agreed, by RAW there's no reason to provide flanking bonuses to mirror images, and granting those bonuses grants a few abilities that could be abused by a clever gish that should increase the spell level noticably from a balance standpoint.
Toast_recon 05-02-07, 04:30 PM	Though keep in mind the official rules (images do not flank, don't bother tracking them unless it's important, but they do also effectively apply to square-targeting effects) are well enough balanced. There's no good reason to houserule in a way that allows flanking without raising the level of the spell. Your suggesting a different set of rules. The flanking requirements are RAW. Using less strict requirements is not RAW. That is a house rule. You are not interpreting the RAW differently. You are changing them. There is nothing wrong with that. Feel free to change the rules if it suits your game. But it is still a house ruling. For people who want to use RAW-only rules, they should not allow images to flank. For people who want a more realistic set of rules should consider this more carefully and may agree that images should provide flank. Then again, they may not agree. Realistic can be very subjective, depending on the description given. Whatever description you go with, that will indicate how you should adjudicate flanking rules. For those who wish to forgo description, they can simply rely on the abstractions of the RAW and allow it to suffice. ok, you and lears fool just completely dismissed everything I said without actually tackling it head on and actually addressing what I said but whatever. We got our points accross and I am not dealing with you guys anymore. I don't think this is a house rule, it is by the rules, as per my previous arguments, Flanking is completely possible. I will not argue any more however. If you wish to argue more, you might as well read my previous posts as a rebuttle, but this thread will accomplish no more. I guess it is time for you to jump on your desk and start screaming "YEAH! I WON! HE FORFEITED! I AM AWESOME! I AM THE CHAMPION OF THE WORLD!" or something childish like that.
tos_shai_hulud 05-02-07, 05:19 PM	Claiming that a post does not address what you said does not mean that it did not address what you said. I addressed what you said completely. Reread my posts, all the way back to the beginning, along with the posts of many others, such as mrvincent, and you will see that we have been addressing your posts. We have been trying to help you understand the difference between house rules and RAW. As you have now stated, you don't want to understand. I was not looking to defeat you, but to help you understand. Anyway, if you believe that you are following the rules with your arguments, then continue believing that. I am not going to be playing with you, so I have no need to 'defeat' you as you say. Play by whatever set of rules you like.
Toast_recon 05-02-07, 05:40 PM	I was saying you didn't address me now. you marely said something along the lines of: RAW says that flanking is not possible in dnd, you can go make a house rule. THat is not addressing my post. That is dismissing it and avoiding it. I want to understand(because I do.) Look, you can't really say anymore. You two just don't seem to get it. I wish I could make You understand, and i have been trying very hard. You two are just stubborn. *puts on fireproof clothing*
tos_shai_hulud 05-02-07, 06:04 PM	You are correct. I don't understand your point. In the DMG, it states that if you don't agree with the rules provided by the system, you should change them to suit your game. Is that what you mean by what you are proposing is part of the rules? If not, then I don't see your point. The rules do not support images flanking. Reading every post you have made, logic may support images flanking, but not the rules. Personally, though, if a real person cannot flank just because he is not holding a weapon, it seems pretty clear to me that an image would never be able to flank.
Toast_recon 05-02-07, 06:07 PM	Wow, I was totally expecting a flaming( hence the comment on fireproof clothing) and I wasn't talking about rule 0, guess you don't see my point. Man, if only I could find that thing I read about What flanking represents!) ah well. Not like this argument is important any way. Who cares if images flank.
mvincent 05-02-07, 06:46 PM	You are correct. I don't understand your point. In the DMG, it states that if you don't agree with the rules provided by the system, you should change them to suit your game. Is that what you mean by what you are proposing is part of the rules? If not, then I don't see your point.I believe he is saying that allowing flanking is one possible (i.e. valid) interpretation of the rules, and thus wouldn't technically be a labeled 'house-rule'. I can understand his point. However, his interpretation ignores: 1) The literal wording of flanking/threatening 2) The apparent intent of the writers 3) The 3.5 FAQ ruling on this issue 4) The spell's precedence set by 2nd edition. As such, his interpretation deviates far enough from expectations that if he allowed mirror image flanking in his own game, he should still probably list it as a 'house-rule' simply to avoid debate.
lears_fool 05-02-07, 11:23 PM	Wow, I was totally expecting a flaming( hence the comment on fireproof clothing) and I wasn't talking about rule 0, guess you don't see my point. Man, if only I could find that thing I read about What flanking represents!) ah well. Not like this argument is important any way. Who cares if images flank. Honestly, it could be abusable in the hands of a rogue/gish and consider the advantage it would give a rogue with 1 level of sorc in a fight. And that's just on the top of my head, I'm sure the CO guys could have a blast. I honestly DO see how you could rationalize that images could get flanking. .but it does seem like you have to selectively apply common sense to make it work. Rationally if you had a dagger and were stabbing someone and so were the images AND you ruled (as there is no ruling) that flanking occurs when one FEELS threatened rather than there being any interaction then your position makes sense. I however don't believe that 'feeling' threatened is what's supported in the rules (if so then that archer taking a bead on you would be far more threatening than the guy with the hammer that you could react to far more effectively). However, even with that in mind. . it's an abstract concept that's sitting on top of several other abstract concepts, none of them really work if we apply too much common sense to them. I accept that the mechanic is abstract and don't try TOO hard to apply common sense to them, because the mechanics violate it repeatedly. .not just this once. Again, I truly do see it like arguing that the car should move faster than the hat in monopoly. One can bring up good points on either side, but the creators never intended for the argument to be had and never intended to grant the tokens abilities other than what they explicitly stated
Bringslite 05-09-07, 12:09 AM	Ok. If I am confronted by an opponent with mirror images up, what happens if I simply close my eyes? Do I take my combat penalties (for being blinded), and then attack his square with only a 50% (plus penalties) miss chance to hit him? :confused: ;)
lears_fool 05-09-07, 08:32 AM	Ok. If I am confronted by an opponent with mirror images up, what happens if I simply close my eyes? Do I take my combat penalties (for being blinded), and then attack his square with only a 50% (plus penalties) miss chance to hit him? :confused: ;) By the spell description, you don't know what square he's in for certain, but otherwise yes you can close your eyes and simply treat him as if he's invisible. Usually though one's going to want to attack and 'pop' images unless they're alone and only have one or two attacks, since the caster can only shuffle on their turn and once you know which is the real one you can focus on it (and/or alert others)